Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations II

[Tricky Lady]

[TITUS VATINIUS]

Errr... Perhaps I didn't study Lucius Aemilius' engravings well enough as I have voted for both motions 10.2 and 10.6 while it was my intention to only approve motion 10.2. My apologies, it is clear that it was not a good moment for me to judge on senate motions after a long night party... emmm... discussing with my priest of Mars.
I shall make sure to be more careful during the next voting rounds.

(On the other hand my vote doesn't seem to make the difference)

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

When such a contradiction occurred earlier, it was decided that unless later motions explicitly stated "This motion invalidates motion X", then an earlier motion X took precedence. And it will be recalled that later and earlier could simply refer to the order in which they were tabled.

I do not recall this. Could you verify this by looking into the senate records ? Otherwise I am inclined to say that as both motions invalidate each other, they cancel each other out and the consuls are free to make up their own minds.

[econ21]

[SENATE SPEAKER]: The scribes have found the following:

In view of the confusion over past Senate motions, I am following Senator Swordmaster's advice and setting a restriction on new motions:

RESTRICTION: Where a motion contradicts existing legislation or a motion (let us call it motion number # from Senate session dated X) that has been tabled with two seconders, the new motion must begin "This motion invalidates motion number # from Senate session dated X"

If a motion does not have such a clause and is found to contradict an earlier motion that has passed, then the earlier motion will take precedence.

Although the wording may not be as clear as could be, the clause "a motion that has been tabled with two seconders" refers to a motion that has been proposed in the same session before a particular motion. Since that time, we have had several motions that have adhered to this convention and have explicitly said, in bold capital letters, "THIS MOTION INVALIDATES MOTION X.Y".

The restriction arose over the issue of Consul Aemilius's conquest of some Carthaginian islands.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=466

Contradictory motions were also an issue in the mid-term of Consul Verginius's period of office and the restriction was alluded to again:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=85

On another point, the scribes are currently runninng out of parchment and will shortly close this record and begin a third book of our deliberations. I will leave this one open for a while so that we can come to a proper close on this interim session of Senate. But shortly, we will start a new page under pro-Consul Publius Pansa.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Very well, Senate Speaker. You are accurate and irrefutable as always. Thank you for your efforts on my behalf.

Unfortunately this leaves the consuls no other option but to comply with the senate wishes, ill advised as we may think they may be. We will probably plunge our troops in new wars in the East, while we are still not recovered from our previous and ongoing, and perhaps upcoming, wars.

Alea jacta est.

The flight of the brids this morning predicted evil tidings. I hope they did not bear on the senate decisions this day, but I fear the worst.

[TinCow]

SENATE SPEAKER:
When such a contradiction occurred earlier, it was decided that unless later motions explicitly stated "This motion invalidates motion X", then an earlier motion X took precedence. And it will be recalled that later and earlier could simply refer to the order in which they were tabled. Hence, I interpret the current situation as being that motion 10.2, as the earlier motion, takes precedence over 10.6. Thus, the Senate mandates the conquest of Byzantium.

Senators have also passed a motion 10.8 ruling out conquests unless authorised by previous legislation on establishing a frontier bounded by the Danube. I do not interpret this as ruling out conquest of Byzantium, as Byzantium lies south of the proposed Danube frontier and would be a natural part of a Republic bounded by that river. However, in the event of their being a contradiction, motion 10.2 would still take precedence being the earlier motion.

What logic is this? Two motions are voted in that specifically reject the conquest of Byzantium and one which favors it, yet you pick the single over the two? Senate Speaker, I have seen you spending a great deal of time with Numerius Aureolus lately. He was an outspoken proponet of the single motion that you now favor. Could it be that he has bought his way into favorable legislation?

Let us examine the exact text of the language I myself proposed. In reference to Motion 10.8, it reads "No provinces will be conquered except those specified by the previous legislation authorizing expansion to the Danube. This Motion will be void if Rome is attacked by any currently neutral nation." Speaker, you have so conveniently ignored what the actual language of the previous legislation was. This clearly refers to Motion 9.18 which reads: "This House proposes that the wars with Thrace, Illyria and Macedon be directed towards establishing a frontier along the river Danube."

In this legislation, the Thracian, Illyrian and Macedonian lands are specifically named, but there is no mention at all of any Greek territories. Thus, Motion 9.18 does not refer to expansion to Greek territories south of the Danube and as such Motion 10.8 cannot possibly allow the conquest of a Greek territory south of the Danube. So, contrary to your statements, Motion 10.8 specifically rejects any conquest of Byzantium, as does Motion 10.6. It is an unjustified abuse of power to simply declare that the legislation supported by your 'friend' Numerius Aureolus is that which is superior based on nothing more than the fact that Tiberius Coruncanius spoke only 20 minutes before me!

I fully believe that the two enacted motions are superior to the one, but if you will not bow to that clear logic, I demand an emergency vote to determine whether Motions 10.6 and 10.8 invalidate Motion 10.2 or vice versa.

[flyd]

We are following precedent. This is not the first time contradictory motions were an issue, and the last time we decided that motions proposed first would have a precedence over later motions. The logic behind this is simple: the propser of a motion can review previous motions (but can't see into the future), and explicitly state that his motion invalidates certain previous motions. That is the responsibility of the proposer, so that everything is prefectly clear and that there is no confusion.

This rule has been established for a while now. It is your fault that you did not review the already proposed motions.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Senators,
After hearing senator Augustus Verginius speak, well versed in rhetoric as always, I am inclined to agree and will support his demands.
Not the time of the proposition of the motions, but if the motion passed or not is what matters. This, in my view at least, leaves us with two options.
We can give the consuls free will in the case of conflicting motions, which in this case will imply that Greece is left alone for now, or we can take an emergency vote which goes explicitly about the matter of whether Greece is attacked or not.
Lastly, we can let the matter lie for now, and attack Greece, and take this matter up in the next senate session and propose a constitutional amendment then. I advise my co-consul to leave the Greek cities alone for now and concentrate on Debeltos first.
I am curious about the views of the senate on this.

[flyd]

Lucius Aemilius and Augustus Verginius, you didn't raise any issue with the first motion takes precedence convention when it was originally concieved, why are you raising an issue now when it would invalidate the motion you support? Surely you're not wishing to change the rules each time so that your pet motion passes?

[TinCow]

We are following precedent. This is not the first time contradictory motions were an issue, and the last time we decided that motions proposed first would have a precedence over later motions. The logic behind this is simple: the propser of a motion can review previous motions (but can't see into the future), and explicitly state that his motion invalidates certain previous motions. That is the responsibility of the proposer, so that everything is prefectly clear and that there is no confusion.

This rule has been established for a while now. It is your fault that you did not review the already proposed motions.

I did not review the already proposed motions because they did not exist when I began composing my statement to the Senate! A penalty is being enacted simply because I did not 'submit' my statement to this 'forum' prior to you! I did not include invalidation statements in my legislation because no legislation existed to be invalidated when I first composed it. I admit that I was in error for not going back to correct my mistake once it was made, but it seems here that an arbitrary decision is being made based upon flimsy logic and rules which were never voted into law by this Senate in the first place!

Are you so afraid of ceding to the will of the Roman people that you will not allow a simple vote on the matter? Would you deprive the Senate of an opportunity to make its own desires clear to all?

[Lucjan]

Here is an idea, let all those who voted for the conquest of Byzantium attend it's siege, that way when the armies of both Ptolemy and the Seleucids descend upon it from opposite sides to secure the strongest foothold they could have against their enemy, these senators can defend their ill thought motion and their isolated and surrounded legion with their own lives.

You have voted to abandon our soldiers in the depths of a snake pit senators, why don't you all join them?

[econ21]

[SENATE SPEAKER]: Legate Verginius, consult the first record I linked to. Shortly before it, you will see young Sextus Antio crying out -somewhat out of character - then, as you do now:

You can't make Motion 1 stand just because it was proposed first.

You will then see that my restriction was explicitly designed to say that you [i]can[/b] make a motion stand just because it was proposed first.

Senator Swordsmaster proposed that existing leglislation that precedence over contradictory motions unless the latter explicitly stated they invalidated what came earlier.

When adopting that proposal in my restriction, I deliberately extended it to include giving precedence to motions proposed earlier in the same session. That was done quite deliberately, in order to avoid the arguments that then raged between Sextus Antio and others on the matter of the Carthaginian islands.

Please consult the record and then do not anger me my reviving an argument that Senate conventions have evolved to avoid.

First Consul Aemilius, I have no power to tell you what to do or not to do. As I stated to you when you were faced with contradictory motions in the mid-term of your period as First Consul:

The interpretation and execution of motions is at the discretion of the First Consul, although the Senate will no doubt take a view on whether the interpretations are reasonable and may take action accordingly in the next session.

I merely explain the conventions we have developed to decide what is the will of the Senate in the event of contradictory motions being passed. I do not think it necessary to have a vote on vote. Our conventions are clear and I am glad that you, at least initially, accepted them as I have laid them out. The will of the Senate is that Byzantium be taken.

You must now act as your conscience dictates, just as Consul Verginius did when faced with unpalatable results from contradictory motions at his mid-term session of Senate.

As for the Senate, it needs to take more care in legislating and should not think that it can simply start again if the wording is sloppy or the voting inconsistent.

I would now like to draw a line under this affair and propose we leave it to the Consuls to get on with their term of office. I will call a new session of Senate for the purpose of discussing the events that unfold. Personally, I am afraid I must now withdraw to attend to other business and will not be able to reply to any other interventions for a while.